Talk:List of Lost episodes

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Redundancy / Merge

I am astounded by the level of effort and will that is being expended to try and defy simple consistency.

The whole point of this page (and other lists like it) is that so there is a short overview of each episode and to provide a encyclopedic and informative listing of episodes.

By boiling down Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) per consensus into Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts, you are just boiling down each episodes to a few paragraphs and provide listing of episodes-- the exact same thing this article is doing without conforming to guidelines, naming conventions, and the design/consistency of most TV shows' episode listings on Wikipedia.

Yes, we like episode guides like Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) to fill us in if we missed an episode, but I would submit that for the vast majority of Wikipedians that a list like this page is more **encyclopedic** and informative than (what seems to me, and I'm sure many people would agree) a long, linear article like Episodes of Lost (season x) designed to feed you the linear story of Lost. Here's an experiment: show Episodes of Lost (season x) and this List of Lost episodes page to someone who hasn't seen the series, the audience for a general-purpose encyclopedia-- and see which one they find more concise, clear, and consistent. I think our passion for Lost is blinding our judgement here-- we just like Lost too much just for an episode listing that is concise and easily accessible to everyone-- otherwise it just feels so empty!

P.S. I'm not that concerned about the issue of individual articles, but what's worrying to me is that you're purging huge amounts of content from Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) with the new drafts at Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts-- and I think it's better to create additional articles on each article (although yes, there would be [gasp] 50 more articles to Wikipedia's 1 million already) and suffer its consequences (e.g. more pages to maintain and watch) rather than deleting all this content that make an Episodes of Lost page the ~300-something largest page on Wikipedia-- especially when many TV shows have long, blow-by-blow recaps of episodes anyway.

So, basically what I'm saying is: that this page is more encyclopedic and that it follows the convention of most other articles out there on TV shows. Plus, Episodes of Lost (season x) does not follow naming conventions while this one does, and it's becoming more and more like this page anyway (see Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts) with shorter and shorter summaries. I propose that this page become the "official" Lost episode page-- and the links to individual episodes on this page point to either episode subsections on Episodes of Lost (season x) or (preferably) to individual episode articles to save the content that will be deleted when the drafts go live.

Cws125 20:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though this discussion has been had a dozen times over, I feel like it's necessary to have again, so here are my replies to what you said above:

• The rewrite of the episode guides was done with very strict guidelines to provide a synoptic overview of the episode without fancruft. Having each episode in its own article invites vast amounts of fancruft, which we spend a great deal of time reverting. It's barely manageable with all of the episodes on the same page, I'd hate to think what it would be like with all of the episodes on separate pages.
• The goal of the episode guides is not to "to fill us in if we missed an episode", it's to provide a brief, encyclopedic overview of what happened in an episode. If we were writing to fill people in, each episode would be thousands of words long, whereas we have a guideline to limit episode guides to 500 words.
• I have a feeling that if the authors who do want separate articles get their way, they're going to make the individual articles, and then leave them for us regular authors to clean up. Trust me when I say we do far too much reverts and clean up of fancruft the way it is (you can look at my history as proof, especially during January and February). Bottom line is that Lost is not like every other TV series on Wikipedia quite. People treat it too much like a fansite, so the best way to maintain data is to keep it short and conscience. I welcome you guys to stay here for a month and enforce the guidelines we have set for articles. You will end up cleaning up so much fancruft that I think you'll end up agreeing what everything I'm saying.

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Each and one of your arguments can also be used against centralization. Hell, it's even worst when you have it cloggered together because if the article is edited various times in the same day your watchlist will only show the last modification done on the article, ignoring the previous one. You say it's barely managable while being on one single page; one can argue that such thing happens because information is centralized.

You say there is a guideline stating that summaries must be limited to 500 words, but that contradicts the natures of wikis, that is meta:wiki is not paper and therefore there are "no size limits in the Wikipedia universe". A guideline is just a guideline, it is not a rule, it is a recommendation.

I do not know why do you think the articles will be "left to 'us' the regular editors" when in reality the article(s) can and will be edited by many people, 'regular' or not. The 'regular' editors do not own the Lost articles.

Lost is a TV series, period, it's no different than The Simpsons, South Park, or 24 (in a descriptive sense). It will have fans the same way that those series do, and be prone to fancruft the same way that they do. Stating that Lost is "different" from other TV series on Wikipedia is a personal opinion, not a fact. It can methodically and systematically be treated the same way that the other series were.

You say that the best way to treat it is by keeping it short, and this contradicts the nature of Wikipedia enormously. We are not writing summaries, we are writing detailed and concise articles. There are no limits.

I beleive that the reason why you are cleaning articles so much is because you made a set of unrealistic guidelines in the first place. You need to understand that one of Wikipedia's philosophy is that "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow". We want everyone to contribute to articles, not only 'regular' editors.

I have made a suggestion to you personally which IMO is the best solution for this. We can have List of Lost episodes and individual articles for each episode, while at the same time having articles such as Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2). Anyone can contribute to both formats.

—Joseph | Talk 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the page as it is. Considering the nature of the show, it is very common to refer back to other episodes for reference or to refresh one's memory and if they are all on separate pages, that will be more trouble. Thank you, Lost Fan 99

First of all, thanks for engaging in the discussion, guys. If anyone has comments, please do... comment.

Fancruft and maintainability

Yes, I realize that some people on Wikipedia go on and on with brilliant but totally unnecessary prose that span paragraphs but can just be said in one sentence-- and that it will be harder to enforce guidelines with all these different articles.

However, putting in comments something like this at the episode article might work:

==Plot==

<--This article has a policy adopted by consensus at Talk:Lost (TV series)/PlotSummaryPolicy. The plot summary for this article:

* should be limited to 500 words.

* should not contain brilliant prose, fancruft, speculation, or original research.

* should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the Story elements section in the main Lost article.

-->

Blah blah blah here goes the plot summary blah blah blah.

Two separate goals, two separate pages

When I think of "brief encyclopedic overview" for the episode listing page, I'm thinking of TV Guide-style one paragraph overview (like the ones on this page), not five paragraphs of plot summary in which the whole thing is a spoiler (argh!) and is too much effort to read unless you're actually interested in that episode-- the new drafts are still the same thing, just trimmed down! What if I just want to know what the episode is about, like "Claire with Kate and Rousseau try to find the place where Claire was taken so they can find a cure for Aaron's illness."?

WHY NOT just a simple episode listing table like this with brief summaries, production code, airdate, etc. (which is more pretty, encyclopedic, organized, follows naming conventions, and exactly what many other shows like Star Trek, Family Guy, have standardized on) and links to individual article pages for those who want the plot summary (or want to go into more depth into that episode)?

Cws125 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not both indeed? I support a single page listing all Lost episodes with a very brief (one sentence) description that then links to the season episode summary pages. As a trial, I've linked the Season 1 episode titles on the List page to the summaries. Take a look. I don't support a separate page for each episode. I can't think of any TV series that merits separate episode pages in Wikipedia. Perhaps in a specialized Wiki (Memory Alpha for example), but 79 articles on the Star Trek original series episodes? Too much. Rillian 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we can have both. I don't remember which TV show uses that format but I have seen it on Wikipedia. Alien vs. Predator (film) used this format (it was changed, don't know when). You can have a Summary section that is a short and concise paragraph describing the episode, and a Plot section describing the episode completely. Both need to have a spoiler warning. About the guidelines, you can not have any guideline that *limits* the content on articles, none. That guideline is absurd in Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit on List of Lost episodes, leave that page as it is, that is, an episode listing linking to individual articles. If you want to do that on Episodes of Lost (season 1) go ahead, but leave List of Lost episodes as it is. You need to browse other shows on Wikipedia so you can notice that we use that format already. For example, South Park has a listing of episodes where each episode is detailed in a Plot section (example: Cartman Gets an Anal Probe). —Joseph | Talk 17:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to state for the record that I'm with the idea:

• [[List of Lost episodes]] providing links to [[Episodes of Lost (season x)]] and [[Title of episode (Lost)]]
• [[Episodes of Lost (season x)]] - pages with a short (one paragraph) summaries of all episodes of the season
• [[Title of episode (Lost)]] individual pages with long, detailed description for every episode

I think this way everyone will be satisfied. NowotnyPL 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Would you be willing to help? =) For example, each episode has its own article but they need to be reverted back because someone redirected them to List of Lost episodes. I have been doing so but only when I get the chance to look at each episode individually. —Joseph | Talk 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure... when it comes to cleaning/other technical stuff I'm there... Since english is not my mother language I'm not so good with the writing though... But I think before we start reverting things a strong consensus should be worked out... So what do you say Jtrost? ;) NowotnyPL 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea, as well-- except the names to better comply with naming conventions for TV series:

• [[Lost (TV series)]] points to [[List of Lost episodes]] as the official page for episodes
• [[List of Lost episodes]] points to [[Lost (season x)]] for brief plot summary
• [[Lost (season x)]] points to [[Title of episode (Lost)]] for long recaps
• [[Title of episode (Lost)]]

This way, we can have List of Lost episodes for table listing and REALLY brief overviews without spoilers (like most TV shows out there), have something like Lost (season x) (like 24 (season 5), for example) for those who want a brief plot summary that follows the 500 words/no fancruft/etc guidelines, and individual episode article pages for those who want blow-by-blow recaps. Is there anyone who disagrees?

Cws125 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Only I would like to keep this nice tables we have in List of Lost episodes and only add [[Lost (season x)]] link above it if we follow the plan above. Something like this for example. NowotnyPL 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of putting the List of Lost Episodes as the official page for episodes on the Lost (TV Series) page. I think that the [[Lost (season x)]] should be more easily accessible, as I think many people looking for episodes summaries would want to go to the [[Lost (season x)]] page rather than the List of Lost Episodes page. I'm not sure of an adequate solution to this problem, other than to either feature both the list and the [[Lost (season x)]] on the main page or to have a link to each [[Lost (season x)]] page at the top of the List of Lost Episodes page. --Kahlfin 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more encyclopedic to have List of Lost episodes as the official page for episodes-- for fans of the series, you'd probably want Lost (season x). But for the audience of a general purpose encyclopedia, I think an alamanac-like listing of episodes without plot summary or spoilers would be more in line of what they would be looking for and more accessible (less information, organized into tables).

However, I do think your solutions to make Lost (season x) and List of Lost episodes coexist are brilliant. However, out of (a) have both Lost (season x) and List of Lost episodes on the main Lost TV page or (b) have a link to Lost (season x) at the top of List of Lost episodes, I would prefer (b) but I would be more than happy with (a), too.

Cws125 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ALIAS has been using the current format for its 4+ seasons and it seems to have worked fine for those pages. I think the current format is much more efficient, but I would be fine with both. --Kahlfin 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is vitally important to Wikipedia We can't just change convention willy-nilly just because a few people want to turn Wikipedia in to a fan site. I vote for a merge. OldManSin 03:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a detailed summary for each episode (per episode or per season) should be left for fan sites. Leave all the tid bits and trivia and cross overs for the fans to devour in their speculation. This site should only have this page for Lost episodes, but with separate pages for each season to keep things shorter and more to the point. -DJM. (fan of Wiki, not an editor and don't want to be)

Individual episode articles

To clarify my position, I support having a List of Lost episodes article. I don't support separate articles for each episode. The season summary pages are more than enough. Based on the lengthy and repeated discussions on Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2) there is not consensus among Wikipedians for having individual articles. Perhaps a straw poll will help? Rillian 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See List of South Park episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of That '70s Show episodes, tv.com's Lost episode guide, Lost's official recaps, Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, meta:wiki is not paper, and information overload. There's really no need to discuss the matter further. It has been done before, other websites do it as well (the official website being one of them), and we have WikiProjects related to this. Basically the reason behind it is that while you see it as 'nough, other readers and contributors don't. Episodes can have infoboxes, quotations, trivia, analysis, etc. There are contributors willing to help with such tasks. —Joseph | Talk 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen all those episode lists and most of them look like shit. I just went to one of the South Park episode pages, and I found a ton of spelling errors, crap grammar, way too much fancruft, and pointless trivia. So don't use that as an argument for breaking up episodes into articles. Danflave 17:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been an absolutely collossal discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television_episodes about the issue of separate articles (definitely much larger than the one at Lost) with every imaginable argument against and for each side-- however, I found their guideline on "Creating articles on television episodes" that was adopted by consensus to be quite reasonable and wondering why Lost shouldn't also follow it.

More important than having many articles on TV episodes is having good articles on those TV episodes. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to create small articles on every episode of a television show. However, it may still make sense to add information about a television episode to Wikipedia. The following process is a suggested method of doing so:

• First, create an article on the television show.
• Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show.
• Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles.

In my opinion, Lost definitely has enough information to justify spinning episodes off into their own articles-- FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SAKE ALONE, I would absolutely demand individual articles. I have failed to see an argument why Lost is special or unique enough to not have separate articles-- not general arguments against this guideline (e.g. increases my watchlist, more articles to police, etc.)-- and I feel allowing the episode subsections to become "article-size" in a new article away from the main article is better than someone constantly maintaining (deleting stuff from) the main article so that the episode subsections are "subsection-sized".

Also, I found this quote (on the talk page of that article) from Jimbo Wales in 2004 (so his view may have changed) but I thought it summed up the argument precisely: "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap. --Jimbo Wales" (emphasis mine)

Cws125 09:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't seen an argument as to why Lost is unique enough? Lost has a completely linear storyline, and each episode relates to the next and many before and after it. And unlike other TV shows with linear storylines, episodes of Lost have details that can be incredibly important to the episodes before and after them (e.g. Locke and Boone, on their way to a plane, find the corpse of a Nigerian drug runner dressed as a priest; 14 episodes later, it turns out that this man saved Mr. Eko's life). This may not be the best example, but things like this happen all the time in Lost, and as such the episodes should be compiled in a format in which someone can get a general idea of the storyline at a particular point in the show, not an idea of what happened in a particular 42 minutes of the storyline that aired at a certain date. I know this from experience, as I once wanted to know a part of the Lost storyline that spanned seven episodes, and would have found this immensely difficult if I had had to visit seven different pages in order to find what I was looking for, especially if I had wanted to save it to disk and later paraphrase it. I think that when most people visit the Lost summary pages, they're there because they're looking for a general idea of the storyline at a certain point, not because they missed an episode and want to catch up. Lost is a continuous storyline, and thus requires a continuous page. --Kahlfin 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is an extremely weak argument. That '70s Show (List of That '70s Show episodes), Stargate SG-1 (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes), and Xena: Warrior Princess (List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes) have linear storylines as well and their episodes are separated. The Sopranos is linear as well and recently some contributors have started to create individual articles for their episodes (List of The Sopranos episodes). —Joseph | Talk 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in my opinion, the Lost storyline is more connected and detail oriented than any of the shows you mentioned. Second of all, the list format doesn't necessarily work for those shows either. Third, I wasn't disagreeing outright with the idea of a list of episodes, I was simply providing an argument as to why Lost was unique enough because Cws125 claimed not to have heard one. --Kahlfin 19:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every show has fans who think it's totally unique and different from everything else. The fact is that regardless of what kind of show it is, it should still follow guidelines and precedent (and the ideals of Mr. Wales). Consolidating the season pages and writing individual episode articles worked well for the List of Futurama episodes and other pages; I believe it's what should be done here. CWMcGee 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second... So you're saying that because it worked for Futurama that it's going to work for Lost because they're both TV shows (and have almost nothing in common besides that)? The guidelines and precedent may work well in general, but in my opinion I don't think they'll work well for LOST, and all personal biases aside, here's why: I think the current format is easier to read and research. Within the current format, if someone wants to look at any number of LOST episodes, they can easily do so without having to load many different pages. If someone only wants to view a particulat LOST episode but is confused because they do not know what happened at the end of the last episode, they don't have to go to the list, visit another page, and then go back to the page they were reading first. In addition, there's the point I made in the above paragraph: If someone wants to research and save to disk part of the LOST storyline that spans many episodes, they will have to save many pages, which is inconvenient. I know other linear storylines have adopted the list policy, and I'm curious as to whether they've considered this. That being said, it's not so much the list I oppose as much as the prominence that people seem to want to give it. I fear that with a list linking to 40+ seperate articles, the articles will no doubt be full of original research, fancruft and grammatical errors due to the fact that it will be much harder for the Wikipedia commmunity to watch 40-some (eventually 144) articles. By no means should such a page replace the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages as the main episode page for LOST. --Kahlfin 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of maintaining both-- a season page (for season-wide plot summary) as well as an article page on each episode (episode-wide plot summary) like has been suggested above)?

The main Lost TV show page would link to a standardized list of Lost episodes (this page) for an encyclopedic and bird's eye view of all Lost episodes, a format that is more consistent with other TV shows. That page would then link to [[Episodes of Lost (season x)]] (or Lost (season x) for better naming consistency), which is now being shortened into Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts with strict guidelines-- e.g. 500 words, no brilliant prose, no fancruft, etcetera.

I think that's a good idea, except for one thing: I'm afraid that the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages will be overlooked by people who are new to the Lost pages and don't necessarily know about them. Here's what I think should happen: There should be links on the main Lost (TV series) page to both the List of Lost episodes and the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages. That way people can choose which one to visit. Are there any objections to this? Because if not, I'm going to add the List of Lost episodes page to the main Lost (TV Series) page and otherwise keep the Lost (TV series) page exactly the way it is. Does anyone have a problem with this? --Kahlfin 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the content on the current Episodes of Lost (season x) that will be deleted would be saved on the article pages for each episode.

Yes, there would be 40+ something articles, but seeing (a) how other fancruft-inviting shows with this format don't seem to be that problematic (b) we're saving content from deletion (c) and some people just prefer viewing articles on episodes (just click Next or Previous Episode to navigate), don't you think this satisfies everybody?

Cws125 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a preference. You would like it to be centralized, even tho individual articles are easier to navigate through. Your proposal is similar to how countries articles were developed years ago, until contributors found out that it was incredibly tiresome to edit and read an enormous article. Contributors then began to create summaries about sections while linking to main articles about a particular subject (example: History of the United States).

Your format requires a user to download say, 50K, when he will only use the last 2K of the whole page. It's unnecessary, but you are forcing them to do so. I highly recommend that you read a book about web design. This kind of discussion has technical implications. It has been researched for years. Most users don't spend time reading long passages of text presented on a screen. A computer screen provides a limited view of a long document. Your first screen capture (1024x768 as of today, moving towards 1280x960) is what makes the user stay on the page. If you don't give them what they want in that space, they will browse something else. Long documents lose people. Links exists so you can create chunks of information that can be presented in a structured form. I understand your point of view and this is why I do not oppose that other contributors develop and maintain summaries by season, but allow other contributors to create individual articles as well. —Joseph | Talk 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree... plus, no one forces anybody to have 40+ pages in the watchlist... This is your choice... You don't want to keep track of all the changes in the episodes' articles...? fine... you don't have to... there are people who will... NowotnyPL 12:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The point about a long document is a good one, however, I think it's best to keep both formats incase someone does want to look at the whole season. As for no one forcing anybody to have those pages on their watchlist, I agree with this as well, but I'm worried about who is going to do it. I know someone will eventually, because this is how Wikipedia works. But as most of the regular Lost editors seem to oppose the list (correct me if I'm wrong), I'm simply afraid that these 40+ pages will grow out of control with fancruft and speculation for months before anyone volunteers the time to watch them. I mean, sure, people will watch pages here and there, but I think it's going to be a while before every page is watched by a regular Wikipedian. --Kahlfin 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how it's so much easier for someone looking at the whole season to scroll down a bit than it is to click a link on the side of the page. Furthermore, the "regular" editors not wanting do it is not an adequate argument. :( At any rate, do you really think smaller pages will end up containing that much more fancruft than a couple of giant pages? CWMcGee 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't do it because regular editors don't want it, I said I was concerned about who's going to do it. I realize that it doesn't matter what "regular" editors want, but do we all want 50 bad articles that don't adhere to guidelines? Not that this is a reason not to do it, but I just thought I'd express concern. --Kahlfin 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If we have individual episodes articles, which it seems we now do, should we delete Episodes of Lost (season 2) due to redundancy? --M@thwiz2020 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a current guide under development at Talk: Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts, but since it isn't complete yet, we could either leave the article the way it is and have it be redundant until the new guide is done, or we could delete it and have no Episodes of Lost (season 2) page until the new guide is done. I'm really not sure which is a better option. --Kahlfin 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The usefulness of the individual episode articles is still being disputed. The best course of action in my opinion is to keep using the articles with the episodes on one page until this is resolved. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, I think it's much easier for people to have just a small list like the one in List of Lost episodes, then if one wan't more information they can click on it to see it's full information. Plus some episodes can go really deep such as Lockdown (Lost) and I bet you don't want to put that with other lost episodes and pile up god only knows how many episodes (or not) --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Flashback included = spoiler

Listing who is featured in the flashback in each episode on the List is a spoiler. Is it necessary to have this in the list? Rillian 19:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it as spoiler and I think it should stay. NowotnyPL 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Second that. It is not really considered a spoiler to me. It's just telling you who is the character it is going to revolve around the most. Sfufan2005 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but some of the episode descriptions do include spoilers, like "The clock counts down to 0." CWMcGee 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So...? we are talking about flashbacks here, not the descriptions... Besides, there is a spoiler warning at the top... :/ NowotnyPL 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I didn't see the spoiler warning. 142.163.169.75 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wonder if there's a difference between a spoiler that tells people about the plot of an episode that has already aired as opposed to "speculation" or "episode descriptions" that stem from commericals or official website information about future episodes. I don't want to know who the flashback is about before the show begins, or anything else that might be found in TV Guide, so putting it here on the same page can spoil it for me. I guess it is my choice to read it or not, though. I just can't always avoid seeing details about a future episode while reading about a past one. Bldxyz 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to keep both formats?

From what I have read in this discussion, it seems that while there is dispute about where to put them, there seems to be a general consensus to keep both this page and the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages (by moving the current content on the season pages to individual articles and using the [Talk: Episodes of Lost (season x)/drafts] to replace the current [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages). As such, if there are no objections, I'm going to remove the mergefrom tags from both this page and from the Season pages. Does anyone have any objections to keeping both episode formats and/or to removing the mergefrom tags? --Kahlfin 19:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait -- no. What is going on here? I am gone for 2 weeks and I come back and there are these hideously redundant episode guides?? Who are these "Joseph" and "Cws" guys? Why are these strangers dictating how long-term Lost editors should edit and maintain the page? These people are rudely imposing their whims on editors who have spent incredible amounts of time and energy on these pages. My question to "Joseph" and "Cws" and these other bullies who have suddenly shown up -- are YOU ALL going to be adding the 50+ new Lost articles to your watchlists? Are you all going to spend hours editing and cleaning up all the cruft and vandalism that these pages will attract? And don't use that argument that South Park and other shows have their own episode pages. I have seen those episode pages and THEY ARE CRAP -- absolutely glutted with spelling errors, bad grammar, outrageous cruft, pointless trivia, etc, etc, etc. I can't believe you people coming here and making these enormous changes and then abandoning all of us long-term Lost editors to take care of your mess. So NO -- there is NO consensus. I think having two episode guides is insane. KEEP IT THE WAY IT WAS. Danflave 17:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no consensus. We're trying here, collectively, to create a quality encyclopedia, folks, and a proliferation of fragmented articles pretty clearly has the precedent of doing the opposite (just look at the South Park and Simpsons examples that have been cited): poor grammar, spelling, tense, etc. We now have 40+ standalone episode articles with slightly varying text from the summary page, with cruft added daily in one or both places for multiple articles. What a fiasco, and we should set about putting all of these into AFD. Yes, let's keep it the way it was, and exercise absolute draconian control over the constant addition of "more more more" to episode summaries, so we can keep things short. "More" is not better, "more" is NOT encyclopedic in and of itself, "more" is just pushing us towards a junior high product in terms of level and sophistication. -- PKtm 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, this a collective effort. Draconian control is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. While you may like draconian control, others have already argued that this is contrary to progress. About fancruft I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Fancruft which is NOT an official policy. It is still a hot debate simply because what you consider fancruft may be informational and useful to others. And about consensus, it seems that you haven't even read Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, or meta:wiki is not paper. —Joseph | Talk 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion about this. Please read the following links: Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, meta:wiki is not paper, and information overload. About who I am, I'm a contributor, just like you. No one is dictacting anything, we are following conventions and consesus reached by other contributors (see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes). About adding Lost to my watchlist, no I won't, because I don't even use the watchlist tool. I have had 0 articles in my watchlist for months. It helps immesively beleive me, articles are better built when many contribute to them, don't be overzealous about them. Like I said before, the 'long-term Lost editors' do not own the Lost articles. You need to understand that just because you dedicate more time to the Lost articles that other contributors, this doesn't make you its de facto manager. The articles will be edited by many (Wikipedia has 1,000,000 contributors), and not only by you or a small group. Keep this in mind. —Joseph | Talk 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the centralized discussion: More important than having many articles on TV episodes is having good articles on those TV episodes. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to create small articles on every episode of a television show. What that tells me is that each show's editors must decide what's in the best interest of the quality of the articles. I think I speak for myself and many others here when I say that we strongly believe that the best way to maintain quality is to keep episode guides short and to the point on one page. We can hold a straw poll and see if that helps resolve our differences. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You speak for me, too, but up until now, as I've been one of the only ones even trying to keep the original episode pages, I was kind of hoping to work out a compromise. However, if a straw poll is the best way to resolve this, I'd definitely take your position. --Kahlfin 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)'

Danflave, I respect your opinion-- but try to realize that some people think that the List of Lost episodes page (with sub-articles) is considerably more encyclopedic, prettier, and more standardized and that the current Episodes of Lost page is awfully long, full of fancruft and spoilers, and a little disorganized.

I would prefer that the main article on Wikipedia on episodes of Lost to be nicely organized like an almanac and be more accessible for the audience for a general purpose encyclopedia, and link to additional articles for more detail. Some people prefer an episode-guide-like article with the plot summary all on one page.

I think having two different formats is a good compromise, instead of degenerating into a cut-throat war of which one should be removed. I know there is some redundancy now between the individual episode articles and the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages, but that won't be an issue when the new drafts with the 500 words/no brilliant prose/etc. episode plot summaries go live on the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages.

P.S. I think fancruft is definitely a problem with having separate episode articles. However, in my opinion, it's the lesser of two evils-- 1) constantly battling fancruft/quality/etc. when absolutely everything is all on one page since it leads to it having really super high visibility, or 2) having a really nice, accessible, short-and-pretty front page like List of Lost episodes that links to other subarticles-- when you have fancruft, it's on a less visible subarticle so it doesn't need to be as urgently fixed and isn't as bad.

P.P.S. Could some of you point out some specific examples of episode articles of South Park or the Simpsons that have bad grammar, spelling errors, or outrageous cruft so that we have a better idea of what you're talking about? I promise not to fix them... :)

Cws125 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Future Episodes

I believe that as long as the Template:Spoiler exists, we can show future episodes that have been conformed,, like 1-2 episodes ahead,, if you don't want to see it then don't cross the spoiler message!--Muhaidib 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Seasons/DVDs Table

hey there,, what do you think? Please say what you think here before removing it just like that! because if you just delete it I will put it back and tell you to say what you think right here, Thanks, and please improve it if you can, I am not really that good in wikitables (it took me a lil while to do that lol)--Muhaidib 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's cool--70.81.11.195 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the season 2 DVD cover from and how do you know that is the final cover for it? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not the Season 2 DVD cover. If I remember correctly, that picture came out on a promo poster for S2 back in June just after S1 ended. See here for greater magnification. It says, "Premieres Wednesda, September 21 9/8C" which obviously would not go on a DVD cover. Rather, I think Muhaidib put it there just as a picture for S2, not as a DVD cover. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

you are absolutely correct, The cover as you know has not been released yet. and it would look Bad if I just make it blank, So I think it's ok untill the DVD cover is released to put this picture, what do you think?--Muhaidib 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of discs

Don't the DVDs, both UK and USA, have seven discs, not five? Amazon.com's page says "24 episodes of seven discs", and living in the UK myself, I know that the UK version has seven discs (four episodes on the first disc and Exodus, Part Three on the seventh with bonus features). Squidward2602 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are 7 discs. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

opss sorry about the mistake guys, its a free encyclopedia feel free to edit it :D, i have the DVD lol,, i don't know what was I thinking, there are 6 Discs and 1 bonus stuff disc--muhaidib (^Talk | _#info) 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This is basiclly a nicely formatted list, not really an article. Also no refrences which is a key. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Flashbacks in 'Dave'

I just finished watching 'Dave' and I don't remember anything about Libby having flashbacks, unless you count the couple of seconds of her right at the end of the episode which could easily have been Hurley's flashback. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this episode was totaly hurley-centric,,, in other episodes (remmember in season one) where a shannon episode included jack in the hospital,, they saw jack for a split-second, that doesn't mean the episode is shannon and jack,, also in what kate did you saw a split second of sayid,, ABC promised a Libby episode (You will get your Libby episode. This season. Source: Matt Raggs at The Fuselage),, although later on this note came out,, (Note that some source say the Libby episode may happen next season instead.),,, so who knows.. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at [1] and it's clearly a Libby flashback. Rillian 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. I tried to say this at that discussion, but they seemed to ignore my argument. As Wikipedians, our standard is verifiability, not necessarily truth. According to the official podcast [2], it's a "Hurley episode". To the best of my knowledge, no verifiable source, much less an official verifiable source, has suggested otherwise. Until one does, it's Hurley-centric as far as we're concerned. --Kahlfin 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying it is not a Hurly-centric episode. If the list includes who has a flashback in each episode (I feelt that is trivia and doesn't need to be in the list but as long as it is there), then it should list every character who has a flashback. Libby clearly has a flashback in "Dave" so she should be in the list, just like Walt's flashback is listed for the Michael-centric epsiode "Special". Why would Walt be listed and not Libby? Rillian 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

my friend Rillan, I totaly understand your point, please try to understand mine, As a lost fan I assume that you seen yesterday's episode (IF YOU HAVN'T DON'T READ ALONG OR YOU MIGHT GET SPOILED), remmember at the VERY end of the episode, Rose drops a medicine can and Locke in his wheelchair catchs it and hands it back to her, she says thank you and locke says your welcome and goes on, so that's clearly a Locke flashback, and we learn something in that split second, that Rose remmembers and knows that Locke can walk now. so would you put the flashback as Rose, Bernard & Locke ?--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There's nothing definitive that says it's Libby's flashback and not Hurley's, because Hurley is also in the flashback. While I've heard the arguments that it is a Libby flashback (It zooms in on Libby's face, Hurley doesn't know that Libby was there, etc.), there's nothing definitive to say that it was indeed her flashback. Walt's flashback in Special (the one with Brian, Susan and the bird) is different, because Michael is not in the flashback at all, and in fact is not even in the vicinity of where the flashback takes place. Up until now, the podcast has told us exactly whose the flashbacks are. Hearts and Minds is not considered a Boone and Sawyer episode even though Sawyer clearly is in it, Abandoned is not a Shannon and Jack episode even though Jack appears in the background, and as Muhaidib said, S.O.S. is not a Rose, Bernard and Locke episode. There are many other examples, but I think you get my point. A flashback with Hurley and Libby in it, even if it reveals something that Hurley doesn't consciously realize, is not considered a Libby flashback. --Kahlfin 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "clearly a Locke flashback" at the end of S.O.S.? Rose is there and witnessed the events. Locke is appearing in Rose's flashback. And along those lines, are we sure that Bernard has flashbacks as well in S.O.S.? Rose is in every scene while Bernard only appears when Rose is present. I suggest S.O.S. only has flashbacks from Rose's perspective and Bernard and Locke are appearing in her flashbacks. Rillian 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not clearly a Locke flashback. Just like the flashback at the end of Dave isn't clearly a Libby flashback. I would agree with S.O.S. being just Rose's episode, except that our official, verifiable source [3] tells us that it's a "Rose and Bernard episode". Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, and thus we have to go with what the official source tells us, not necessarily what it actually true. --Kahlfin 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I followed the link Kahlfin provided but don't see where it confirms that S.O.S. features flashbacks from both Rose and Bernard. Can you provide a more specific link? Rillian 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one [4]. It's a link to the April 10th podcast, in which it is stated that S.O.S. is a "Rose and Bernard episode". --Kahlfin 14:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a "Rose and Bernard" episode. The episode "...In Translation" is a Jin/Sun episode, but the table lists only Jin. Any particular reason? Rillian 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"...In Translation" aired before there were podcasts, so there's no verifiable source that tells us that it's a Jin episode or a Jin and Sun episode. Three of the flashbacks in "...In Translation" are obviously only Jin's because Sun isn't in them. Another only features Sun for part of the flashback, so we can believe that it's Jin's flashback. The fifth one could go either way. I guess along the way, some Wikipedian just decided that it was a Jin episode. I don't know what it is, but I think that since we were told that "The Whole Truth", an episode which is clearly more Sun-centric than Jin-centric, is a "Sun and Jin episode", we should probably change "...In Translantion" to Jin and Sun in the table. Any objections? --Kahlfin 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is how I see it. Jin and Sun had separate flashbacks during Season 1 with one shared during Season 2. Sun's was "House of the Rising Sun" and Jin's "...In Translation". I come to this conclusion because I've watched both episodes several times and though the episode may feature the other character, it is still seen in the point of view of the person experiencing the flashback. "HOTRS" focused on Sun escaping and "...IT" focused on Jin's involvement with Sun's father. "...And Found" was a combined flashback since it features a flashback from both sides. "The Whole Truth" is clearly a Sun-centric episode because Sun remembered of her English lessons and how the doctor told her Jin was sterile which Jin would OBVIOUSLY not know. However for "Dave", I still feel this is a completely Hurley-centric episode and S.O.S. was completely Rose & Bernard not Rose, Bernard and Locke. Sfufan2005 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the official podcast told us that "The Whole Truth" is a "Sun and Jin episode", not a Sun episode. Therefore, since as Wikipedians our standard is verifiability, not truth, we have to say that the flashbacks are both Jin and Sun's unless we can find another verifiable source that says otherwise. However, no official source has told us anything about the flashbacks in "House of the Rising Sun" or "...In Translation", so if we can come to consensus that the former is Sun's episode and the later is Jin's, then it can stay that way. --Kahlfin 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Sfufan2005 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should we have a straw poll here to decide the fate of Lost articles? --M@thwiz2020 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Define what you mean. Are you concerned (as I am) about the proliferation of articles on minor topics? Or does this pertain to the episode summaries? Or something else? -- PKtm 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So this is like a straw poll to decide if we should have a straw poll :p I think we should have one to decide if we should stick to single page summaries or have a separate page for each article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

sure, let's do that--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that having both is also an option. --Kahlfin 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We currently have three formats in existence:

1. List of episodes with really short summaries
2. List of episodes with really long summaries
3. Individual episode articles

We have to decided which of the three to keep. Hence, a three-way straw poll? Keep it open for one week - I can't vote until Saturday, unfortunately :( --M@thwiz2020 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

three?? really,, I only know about two, the one with really long summaries Episodes of Lost (season 1) and List of Lost episodes, which one is the one you got labled (#1) in yout list? --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Season 1 contains short summaries (under 500 words each) and season 2 contains long summaries (many are over 500 words). Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ohhh,,, I though you mean like a third type or somthing like that lol, anyways it's too early in the mornin' for arguing,, so good mornin' guys :P,, got classes to go to ;),,, peace --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Equally, see the shortened summary work that's been done at Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts. I don't necessarily like the specific summaries in every case yet, but I do think that keeping each summary to a defined (and relatively short) length is one way of keeping out the incessant insertion of fancruft. -- PKtm 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You people are just complicating too much. There is obviously enough material for separate episode's articles so why not having a list of all and one for each episode? This has been tested and works perfectly. See Startrek or Stargate.--Tone 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the above discussions. There are plenty of arguments not to do this, and I'm not going to repeat them here. An article for each season has worked for shows such as ALIAS and 24. I definitely think that a straw poll is a good idea, but until we decide to do one (or not to do one), I'm not going to argue this much further. My point is that there is clearly divided opinion on the matter, and that not everyone would agree with you're argument. That's why I think a straw poll is a good idea; we need a definitive solution to this. --Kahlfin 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that we have:

1. Short summaries: List of Lost episodes
2. Long summaries: Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2)
3. Individual articles: Lockdown (Lost), etc.

We should have three straw polls. The first is should we keep the list, yes or no. The second is should we keep the longer pages, yes or no. And the third, should we keep individual articles, yes or no. Then we go from there to decide the actual content of the articles. --M@thwiz2020 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

well really the short-list and the individual articles are kindda one,, they link to each other, so it's really between the one with all the episodes included in the page or the one with the breif list that has details on episodes articles, so it's only two not three--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of this page is to replace the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages. It's to serve as a list that links to all of the episodes across every season. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my previous experience is that the individual articles start out the same as the summaries on the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages, they just become different because people will edit one without editing the other. Hence, maybe we can have a poll with three voting options:

1. Keep List of Lost episodes and Dave (Lost), etc. but delete Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc.
2. Keep Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc. but delete List of Lost episodes and Dave (Lost), etc.
3. Neither of the above (please explain what you want to happen)

Will that work? --M@thwiz2020 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This page originally linked to the episodes on one page, and I supported creating this page because I liked the idea of having a link to each episode on one page. So I would like to keep this page and the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages. I think the options should be (I have bolded the changes I made):

1. Keep individual episodes Dave (Lost), etc. and redirect Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc. to List of Lost episodes
2. Keep Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc. and redirect Dave (Lost), etc. to List of Lost episodes
3. Neither of the above (please explain what you want to happen)

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! When do we start the poll? --M@thwiz2020 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If everyone else is okay with these options I would say asap. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Which Lost-related Wikipedia articles should we keep? Please only include your name or signature in the voting area. Keep all comments and discussions in the "Discussion" section, to conform with standard WP:STRAW and/or WP:POLLS. This poll will end after 1 week (on 04/24/2006 at 13:30:00 UTC). If a consensus emerges, it will become a policy for this and all other Lost episode pages going forward. For the purposes of this poll, the following terms will be used: Episode articles are Lost-related articles that pertain to only one episode. This includes Dave (Lost), Lockdown (Lost), etc. Season articles are Lost-related articles that pertain to only one season. This includes Episodes of Lost (season 1), Episodes of Lost (season 2), and articles created in a similar manner for future seasons. List article refers only to the article List of Lost episodes, which lists all the Lost episodes for all seasons and a one-sentence summary for each. Keep the episode articles and redirect the season articles to the list article Joe 15:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Matt 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Cws125 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Jake11 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Sfufan2005 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Sarahjane10784 23:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Megapixie 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Behun 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Alexignatiou 11:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Matharvest 17:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Tomcage9 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Lumaga 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Maelwys 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) SLC1 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Blade 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC) gabby 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Ekalin 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Rikkyc 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) danyoung 12:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) ArgentiumOutlaw 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Total: 22 Keep the season articles and redirect the episode articles to the list article --LeafGreen Ranger 15:25, 17 April 2006 (BST) NeoThermic 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC) PKtm 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Kahlfin 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Manipe 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC) --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) --torritorri 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Rillian 19:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Danflave 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) NostraDogbert 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Chris 42 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Total 12 Neither of the above (please elaborate below in the "discussion" section) Discussion I'm remaining neutral for this vote (so I guess my vote goes here). If we redirect the episode articles, then the season articles will get way too long with fans going out of hand and elaborating forever. But if we redirect the season articles, then having all those episode articles instead will be more to watch on my watchlist for OR, NPOV, etc., and people can use that as an excuse to write more cruft. And if I vote neither, then I have to choose an outcome, and, as I don't want to choose now, I guess I shouldn't vote but instead discuss it here. --M@thwiz2020 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I'm voting as per below comments. --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I'm 100% for Articles and the List, I belive that the Season should just have season Highlights or somthing like that --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Is there anything wrong with having both formats? I mean, I know it would be convenient to have one or the other, but if opinion is strongly divided, wouldn't having both be an acceptable compromise? I would rather have season articles, but would be willing to compromise, and as such will wait to cast my vote. If either option wins, lots of good or potentially good wikipedia writing would be deleted forever. I hope there's a better solution to this. --Kahlfin 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Apparently not. I'm casting my vote for season articles unless someone wants to propose a compromise, in which case I'd be willing to change it. --Kahlfin 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I think that the season articles are unweildly and inflexible. With full articles, episodes can be expanded indefinitely. Plus, the list article allows users to quickly browse episodes from ALL seasons, with more information than just the title, and then read up on detailed information on demand. With the season articles you only have just episode titles, or browse through a massive page of text just to read up on the basics of episodes. And I don't think we should have both formats, because its much harder to keep up with. Thus we should just go with the best one.--Jake11 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Not only that, but the formatting is much cleaner with individual episode pages and a single "list of episodes" page. The "list/episode pages" format has been successful for several other shows on Wikipedia, most notably South Park and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (though the Buffy episode pages could use a smidge of cleaning.) Season pages are kinda useless in comparison with this method, becoming increasingly long and load-heavy. Adding those sassy episode boxes for each episode on a season page would just be plain murder. In the end, with the list/episode manner of things, it's just each user's responsibility to not create useless episode pages (? (Lost), cough cough) and to keep pages tidy if things definitely look out of hand. --Matharvest 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This page will remain here regardless. Its content is not what we are voting on here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Individual articles will be impossible to maintain. Already there is speculative content that does not abide by the policies we've agreed on for episode synopses. For example: speculation on future episode titles (? (Lost) and Three Minutes (Lost)), ungodly long summaries (Lockdown (Lost)), non notable trivia (Lockdown (Lost) again), and speculation on flashbacks (see this article). It's hard enough to control all of this on one page with one talk page. Sooner than later we'll have over a hundred articles with a hundred talk pages. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, you've convinced me to vote. When I gave conflicting reasons above, one for each side, I thought the two sides were equal. Now, though, I see that it is an extremely tilted seesaw, and I must vote. --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) It's not impossible, its quite easy actually! Keeping all the articles in one page is not reasonable, the page will be long and heavy on some browsers. All pages should have some Screenshots to better explain the episode, so let's say there are 2-3 screenshots per episode, that would be at least 50-70 images in the episodes page, what if someone has a slow connection and they are looking for the newest episode (the one at the very bottom), that would be a problem because all the images will have to load. Plus in the individual articles you have no limit on how much to write, but imagine if you made long descriptions on every episode, think how thin the sidebar would be. The small list is convenient because it has a 1-2 line description and a small thumbnail organized nicely, and if I want more info on one episode I can just click the episode and that's all there is to it!--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Have you given much thought on how to maintain the quality of the synopses? In the past 6 months I have made 158 edits to the Episodes of Lost (season 2) page. Each edit had been a cleanup of some kind. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you have been watching that article and cleaning it up. Do you plan on enforcing the policies regarding trivia and future episode information we have created across every single episode? You even created some of the episode articles that I listed above as pure speculation. I am extremely worried that if we have individual articles the quality will take a turn for the worse and no one will care because it's impossible to clean up all of those pages. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I understand you point, but if more try my best to keep the articles clean, they are clean right now, it's true that some are "speculation" such as Three Minutes but that's not listed in the episode list yet, but it's not "Pure speculation" because if it was it would be deleted because the episode will not be named like this, for example I made sure that "The Foundation" episode was not created untill it was official, so if you go in the Three Minutes epi you will just se [Season Finale] as the next episode, It's really easy to maintain and plus, you get the Infobox, which is really useful. thanks--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Here is the policy concerning future episodes in case you missed it. According to that policy those episodes not yet confirmed should be listed for afd. You can't use what will likely happen to make episode articles. I highly encourage you to follow that policy. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I understand your point, and I did hide the episodes that are not confirmed, so if you see the list they are hidden, did you ever see the Simpsons list? they have episodes that are listed for a year to follow, that's like me putting Season 3 in the list! but I try my best to keep it clean, maybe an epi slipped from the hidden code but that's ok i guess. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also on a second thought, if you see the future tv show template that is placed on future episodes of lost you read this, "... [This Article] contains information of a speculative nature based on commercials for the show, its website and/or other advance publicity. The content may change as the date of broadcast approaches and more information becomes available.". thanks --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Is the Simpsons the same as Lost? Do they have the same policies? No. Lost has policies related just to Lost. That template is not a policy, so the Lost policy overrides it. That template is designed for other shows, such as the Simpsons, that either have no policies or have policies that state they can write speculation. Please cater Lost articles towards Lost policy. --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) and who makes up those policies? All shows should be treated the same, If the Episodes articles are being watched as much as the Season articles, can you give me one reason of why would you say the Full season list is better...--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) LOST is a continuous storyline. If someone wants to do research on the storyline over a period of time, they have to view many different pages. If they want to save those pages to disk, they have to save many different pages. I know this from personal experience. I once wanted to research the LOST storyline from Man of Science, Man of Faith (Lost) through Collision (Lost) and I would've found it very difficult if I had had to look through and save 8 different articles, especially if they were as poorly written as some of the current articles. This is in fact how I became involved with Wikipedia in the first place. But that doesn't matter, because individual episode articles are not going to be watched as much as the season articles, no matter how hard we try. I mean, just a few days ago I hid four uncomfirmed episodes that someone had put on the list. THE LIST. If we can't even watch the list effectively, how can we possibly watch 48 seperate articles? --Kahlfin 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) BTW, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Future TV shows, Template:Future tvshow has just been nominated for deletion. --M@thwiz2020 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Quality? don't try to pull that on me, All the articles I created for the episodes is just copied and pasted from the season article because I don't want to make somthing up. I said it and I will say it again, if the Lost episodes/list articles become the main articles belive me they will get more attention from many people including those who where focusing on the season episodes, On my point of view I think the season article should have a season brefing, and have a link to the episodes for more detail, it's just common scene. And to reply about the FutureTV template, well that's too bad for the person who made it, but it's not a big deal for me personally, I just want to focus on making the LOST articles on Wikipedia better :) peace --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I hate to say this, Muhaidib, but if you are going to be monitoring the new Lost episode articles for spelling and grammar, then I am very scared. Danflave 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC) yeah? Well excuse me! but if the Lost episodes articles remain I would expect some people to help me out with the articles, will you be helping out? --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC) If these individual articles stay I can honestly tell you that I will not ever contribute to them. I have helped extensively with keeping the episode synopses for season 1 short, free of fancruft, and informative. What you are campaigning for reversing everything myself and many other authors have worked so hard on, and encourages the very things we're discouraging. So if you do get your way, I do wish you good luck because you will be receiving no help from me. Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC) well you know there is copy/paste, you can do that if the article already exists at the season page, wikipedia is not about who created what, I think i made some small edits in the season articles, I don't think they are bad or anything--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC) That's true. I'm sorry I commented about the current quality of articles, as I don't think initial quality is anyone's main concern. See PKtm's comment below. --Kahlfin 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Muhaidib, with all due respect, I don't think you're hearing what Jtrost and Danflave et al are saying. The issue is not the initial population of the story article, but rather the ongoing maintenance, fighting against the constant insertion of incorrect, inappropriate material, not to mention out-and-out vandalism. Which is exactly what's already happened; the last three episodes, for example, each have about 30 edits already to their individual story pages. As Lost expands to even more episodes, it's just not going to scale well (it already doesn't scale well). If this approach prevails, it is going to have the end effect, I have to say, of damaging Wikipedia's quality. -- PKtm 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) I'm new to Wikipedia, but I definitely think the season article is more organized and easier to use. --NostraDogbert 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Another reason why the season articles should stay: Stuff like this will happen... a lot. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC) OMG. I had no idea what I was about to click on--it was even worse than I'd imagined. We need to resurrect Leflyman's good proposal, Wikipedia is not a fansite. If the individual articles are retained, I tend to agree with Jtrost, and I too will not be participating in a losing proposition of trying to keep them clean and Wikipedia-like, because I'm not into futility. -- PKtm 01:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Jtrost and PKtm, the article was cleaned up, relax! we don't have enough support for the articles yet, the articles can be cleaned up as easily as the other list--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC) The fact that the article was created in the first place is a problem. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I was just at the Episodes of Lost (season 2) article, there was speculation all the way to the last episode (check the history. And for some really wierd reason it didn't have the LostNav box... anyways I made some fixes and stuff like that, you know anyone can edit these pages, don't take anything personally but it's all in your head. I mean Wikipedia is not a place for fighting and you have to make little things like we are agains you or your enemies. I am here just like you, learn from Wikipedia and contribute. I translated the LOST page to arabic, you can see it at the translation box, and the List of episodes too. I just hope you don't get any negative vibe from me --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I guess my biggest concern, Muhaidib, is that you yourself were the originator of that completely speculative article. Doing so, with it riddled with out-and-out statements such as "This could be all wrong, partly correct, or totally it", and tons of fan-oriented, non-encyclopedic content such as "now for a drum roll"... it all indicates to me that we are in serious disconnect about fundamental Wikipedia tenets about notability, verifiability, abhorrence of speculation, etc. (See the obvious: WP:NOT etc.). Again with all due respect for your energy and enthusiasm on these matters, I'd have to gently suggest that you may want to reconsider whether your goals are in alignment with Wikipedia's, and consider alternative avenues such as Lostpedia. -- PKtm 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC) thanks for the offer but no thanx, and I am not here in Wikipedia just for LOST, I just copied and pasted the last episodes' note, didn't even read it, you know what this discussion is getting too long I don't want to talk about this anymore, I can't see where the thing starts and where it ends, thanks for your time--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Hi, I don't know what to vote for but what happens when the LIST article stays? what happens to the SEASON articles? I think they should just have a season synopsis no details about the episodes, maybe links to them, is that option in the vote list? --No time87 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I'm remaining neutral but I want to stress the importance that one of these solutions are reached, because the current format (lists with recaps + articles), is crazy! Arru 19:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) You know, I want to question the argument that having separate episode articles will be oh-so-much-work and will degenerate into an unmaintainable mess. People who write fancruft and speculative stuff about future episodes are going to do it anyway, whether it's on the main season page or on individual episode articles. I would prefer they do it on a very low visibility article than do it on a high visibility season article that needs to be constantly watched by a dedicated team of Wikipedians. And these low visibility articles *are* cleaned up-- take a look: ? (Lost), Three Minutes (Lost), Live Together, Die Alone (Lost). They're clean. Yes, they were bad at one point, but I'm also sure that the season pages contained speculative fancruft and bad grammar at points, too. You know, I seriously doubt anyone goes to a future episode unless they're *looking* for speculation. If they don't want to be spoiled, they're not going to go there. Yes, it's bad that these articles usually contain speculation and content of bad quality-- but some good Wikipedian is going to clean it up. I would prefer this stuff be banished to a low key article (e.g. a "seedy" district of Wikipedia) where it can be fixed without much ado instead of constantly battling these guys on the main season article where innocent users can stumble upon fancruft and whatnot if they're at the right place at the wrong time. Cws125 10:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) So your reason for supporting the individual articles is because you think fancruft is impossible to maintain, so you rather spread it across many less visited articles than one large article? Do I need to even point out what is wrong is that argument? Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) No, I'm saying that I would rather have a few bad apples on future episodes (that can be fixed without a lot of visibility) than have this appear on a season article that is constantly being edited. Most of the ~24 articles on episodes that have aired, in my opinion, are very stable. Cws125 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) You know, this has gotten insane. If you notice, the dedicated Wikipedians who have been diligently editing the Lost articles for months all voted the same way. However, a large group of random, overzealous individuals came in and basically just made an enormous change to the Lost articles even though they've put no effort into the pages (nor will they most likely be involved in the new changes.) They're all being led by some guy who doesn't understand Wikipedia rules and actually CREATED an article of complete Original Research. I am with PKtm and JTrost. I am done with the Lost episode articles. I am still happy to help maintain the main Lost page and the Characters pages, but I am not going to let myself be stressed by maintaining 100+ episode articles. And can I please just add -- over and over and over, people keep using this argument about how The Simpsons and South Park all have episode articles and it's "worked out fine." I want to ask all of you -- what are you talking about??? I constantly see bad grammar, original research, misspellings, cruft, cruft, and ubercruft in all of these episode articles. It's atrocious. And now this is what we'll have for Lost. Thank you Muhaidib. I hope you will maintain these new articles with better spelling and English grammar than you've displayed in your Talk comments. Also, you really need to read this. Danflave 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Thank you so much for saying this, Danflave. While I myself am relatively new to Wikipedia, I've been here for five months and dedicated most of my time during those five months to editing the LOST pages (150+ edits), particularly the Season articles. Like Danflave said, pretty much everyone who actually maintains these pages voted to keep the season articles. In fact, with the exception of Muhaidib, I don't think anyone who voted for seperate articles has made more than a few edits to any pages having to do with LOST. A few bored Wikipedians came in and imposed this ridiculous protocol on a TV series that didn't need it, all because other TV series' do it. Like Danflave said, it doesn't work for those series', either. And now, guess what? They're going to go to other series' who are busy editing their season pages and tell them about how LOST is using the new format and therefore they should as well. I'm with the other regular editors. I'm going to watch the list itself, as well as the main Series article and many of the character pages. But as far as the episode articles go, the people who imposed this can take care of their own mess. --Kahlfin 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) You guys talk about me like I created this whole thing, I DID NOT create the List of Lost episodes, and I DID NOT create this Straw Poll, I just casted my vote.I don't want to delete or redirect the season articles, I just want them to have a season briefing, no episode details, Danflave you you think your perfect? you can't even write wikicode! Quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research|'''this'''] you did two mistakes here, if you want to do an external link, you put a " "(space) after the URL, not a "|" the second mistake is that you don't need to do an external link, you can just write [[Original_research]]! Nothing further to say --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Man, my slight typo in wikicode is nothing compared to your hideous mangling of the English language in the past two weeks. I've fixed the typo. Danflave 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC) You know, Danflave, I would like you to support your arguments. While I'm glad that you think your side is the one with all the "dedicated Wikipedians" who have been editing Lost dilegently for months, please substantiate them. Are you sure you're not confusing "regular editors on the Lost article" with the "people working on improving the *season* articles with new drafts"? Finally, you know, I disagree with your assessment about Lost. All the other popular TV shows that have episode recaps (like Star Trek, Stargate, 24, Family Guy, and etcetera) are *ALREADY* on individual episode articles. We're using these shows as ARGUMENTS for why Lost should do the same, not using Lost to convince the other guys to do the same. Also, I think all these shows (especially Stargate) have fantastic episode articles that I enjoy reading while Lost's season pages are a huge 80K mess. Cws125 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Having done a fair bit of copy-editing on the the main Lost article, I have to add that there is no way that I am willing to wade through the pile of bad grammar/spelling, ceaseless repetition, linkarrhoea and fancruft that will surely result from having individual articles. To those that favour this proposal, if it goes ahead, then good luck to you — you'll need it. Chris 42 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I'm curious about your theory of spontaneous generation that speculates having separate episode articles will actually create more bad grammar/spelling/ceaseless reptition/linkarrhoea/etc, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Cws125 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Simply because virtually every addition to the Lost main article has required some sort of clean-up, if not by me then by the likes of Jtrost, Leflyman, Danflave et al (who all do a very good job of it). Multiply this task by 50 or 100? No thank you. Chris 42 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard Main?

Wait, should all characters with flashbacks be main characters?

well that's what I was hoping for,, but I guess they are still not credited as starring roles,, maybe later on, although bernard was really great this episode--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Future episode information and how to handle

The consensus arrived at elsewhere on Lost pages is that future episode information (e.g., whose flashback it is) can often be wrong or based on speculation from trailers for the episode, etc. This page should follow the same consensus, in my view, if we're to have it at all. Rather than just keep blanking it out, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. -- PKtm 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. On one hand, I agree. However, on the other hand, if ABC releases five photos of Locke at a funeral, while it's still technically against official policy to say that it's Locke's episode (because to infer this is Original Research), I'm sometimes inclined to turn a blind eye simply because it's so obviously true (I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't, but I do). However, in an episode like Two for the Road (Lost) that is confirmed to guest star both John Terry as Christian Shepherd and Rachel Ticotin as Captain Cortez, I think to infer that it's Ana-Lucia's episode is blatantly against policy and should be reverted. --Kahlfin 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes it is obvious, but if we start making exceptions then where do we stop? Sometimes production notes leak onto the Internet. Should those be considered an official source? I think it's best to stick with the policy we've already passed and err on the side of caution. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If Wikipedia were a fansite, that'd be a different story, but here, we have to be verifiable, encyclopaedic. Trouble is, in Wikipedia and its forms, if there's a blank cell in a table, people seem irresistibly driven to FILL it with something. -- PKtm 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. From now on, I won't do that anymore. As far as I'm concerned, we should stick to official policy concerning future episodes, no matter what. If this whole seperate pages thing wins out (which I hope it does not), maybe we could even consider something as extreme as posting the official description, then proceeding to lock the page from edits until the episode airs. I'm not sure that there's another solution to this problem, except to keep reverting and removing. --Kahlfin 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I saw a picture of Ana-Lucia's mom (the captain) in the Two for the road episode, so I guess it's Ana' centric or it has her flashbacks --Crazy boy 555 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It also stars John Terry as Christian Shepherd, so Ana-Lucia's mom's appearance could be a cross-over. Granted, it's more likely to be Ana-Lucia than Jack, but even if we knew for sure that it was Ana-Lucia's, actually editing the list or page to say that it is would be against official policy unless it's been confirmed by ABC, a cast member, or one of the writers/directors/producers. --Kahlfin 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation?

Just curious, but what is the source for the titles of the last two episodes for season 2? --Berger 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't belive there is one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't belive "?" or "Three Minutes" have been officially confirmed by ABC either, so I'm going to hide them until they are. --Kahlfin 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It was wrong, the last episode of the season is Live Together, Die Alone--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But wah, I wanted to learn about the Hanso Foundation, I bet the real episode will be just more cliffhangers like season 1 finale :-( --Jake11 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah I know :( but they have to do this you know, if they don't keep us at a cliffhanger no body will watch season three, but the good thing is we'll find out alot of things before the end of the season :D --Crazy boy 555 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Days on the Island

For the first season, wasn't there only 40 days on the island and not 44 as it says in the second part of the dvd section.

I believe you're right. I'm going to change it, at least until someone can cite it.

No, it was 44. Locke said in "Adrift", (which incidentally was the same day Exodus and Man of Science, Man of Faith took place):

KATE: We were in a plane crash.

DESMOND: Where you now? And when was that?

LOCKE: 44 days ago.

Squidward2602 09:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Season Colors

I think that (Salmon Pink) and (Pale Orange) are not really LOST colors; Don't you think? we should get blue or green. What do guys thinkk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy boy 555 (talk • contribs)

Hi there Crazy boy 555, I see that no one welcomed you yet so welcome to Wikipedia. Here is something that you can keep in mind while you are here. Now back to your question, I don't really think it's that bad, I don't know who picks these colours but I think they are ok, Blue and Green are pretty good too so how about we make the third season blue ;) --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Muhaidib, I don't really mind the colors, but maybe for the next season we sould make a cool color--Crazy boy 555 05:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Faiths"?

The summary for "Lost: Reckoning" reads: The fourth recap episode for the series. This will recap the faiths of the survivors of Flight 815. I assume this is supposed to be "fates"? I'll edit the article accordingly, but I might be wrong, so I'm including this in Talk. Cromag 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if that was official from ABC then i'm pretty sure it's what they said it would be. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in America, I just download the episodes off of a university file-sharing program.

Erm, not that that's illegal at all, honest. But seriously, someone who lives in America and actually saw the flashback compilation should be able to tell us whether it was a collection of scenes that recap their fates or if it really does have to do with their Faiths. Remember Mr. Eko is a priest and Anna-Lucia wears a cross in some scenes. On a different note, cool choice of a username but isn't Muad'dib spelt with an apostrophy? Or is it just that you can't have punctuation in your username?

Numbers of seasons

Hey guys, (finally getting to know my way around wikipedia lol). How many seasons do you think lost will have? I really really hope it's three seasons, because I love lost and all but having too many seasons will kill me! --Crazy boy 555 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No body knows yet, I think (and hope) it's just three --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know (or care especially), but I do feel the need to point out that these discussion pages are actually not for general discussion of Lost-lore, but are there specifically to discuss the articles and how to improve them. Speculation on the series duration etc. (i.e., other fan forum-like activity) thus isn't appropriate here; I'd suggest turning to Lostpedia for that. -- PKtm 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives

Good morning guys and girls, I was just looking around at the Desperate Housewives (I don't watch it I was just bored) and I found something... in the List of Desperate Housewives episodes their episodes go as far as season 3! How come they don't follow the Future episode policy? thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the future episode policy we follow is one that we passed only for Lost. The authors of that article are welcome to make their own rules about future episodes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

really? I though it was like a wikipedia thing, interesting--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Reaching a consensus We have to reach a consensus about which article to keep. The Poll was finished today with 22 votes to redirect the season articles and 12 votes to keep the season articles. How does it work? As I already explained, I don't want to DELETE the Lost season articles, I just want to make it a small and brief article that talks about the season in general, and have a link to the Lost episodes for more detail. Its really just common sense. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) So, the poll is over. I would say that, as per WP:CON, we have not reached a consensus. What should we do next? --M@thwiz2020 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I dunno, that's what I'm asking, PKtm said I can't make any major changes untill we reach a consensus. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I have reverted the many edits made by Muhaidib that somehow assumed that the straw poll results were binding, contrary to WP:POLL. Such a poll isn't binding in any event, but that's especially true in this case given the number of votes made by non-participating users. My suggestion is that we continue with the season articles; every long-standing editor here on these pages has voted for that. -- PKtm 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Yeah we know you want that... Wikipedia is really complicated with it's consensus and surveys.. I have exams soon so you guys enjoy playing with the lost articles... Peace --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Clearly there are a larger number of people who want individual articles, however the discussion seems to favor the season articles. Out of the 22 people who voted for individual articles, only two or three participated in the discussion, and even then I did not see any clear reason why the status quo needs to be changed. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I don't want to speak for everyone, but I was under the opinion that this was simply a vote, so that is all I did, or would expect anyone to do. Just because many of the people there didn't "discuss" the topic with you, doesn't mean you can ignore their vote, or declare that the poll becomes void and things go back to the way they were. I don't know about most people, but I think that if one side has nearly twice as many votes as the other side, then there is a pretty clear consensus. Also, you can't simply claim that the proceedings aren't "binding" and ignore the whole thing just because the outcome wasn't your vote. It is pretty clear that a great majority of the people here wanted this outcome in the vote, so why aren't you guys cooperating with the majority? ArgentiumOutlaw 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC). I also thought that this was just a poll, not a "Justify your answer" assignment. Lumaga 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC) A majority is not the same as a consensus, and Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority. Please read WP:CON. To quote directly: "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." The poll is not being declared void, and the proceedings were never binding to begin with, as the function of a poll is simply to test for consensus. There is obviously no consensus. Thus, because there is no consensus, we have to keep discussing solutions to this problem until a consensus is reached. --Kahlfin 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC) "There is obviously no consensus." You're not taking the opinions expressed by votes into account when you say that. I have a question for you, if neither side will ever agree, when will we reach a consensus? (hint: the answer is never, simple calculus). ArgentiumOutlaw 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) There's this thing called a compromise. It's for people who aren't irrational elitists who insist on getting their way no matter what and have no regard for other people's opinions. And by the way, I actually was taking into account the opinions expressed by votes. The vote was 12 to 22, which means that although a majority of people want it, it's not just a few people that don't. Like I said before, "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy". If you would actually read the policy instead of making fun of people, maybe you'd understand that. --Kahlfin 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I think Argentium wasn't being very irrational at all. Straw polls are there to see what the "community" thinks (even the ones who are usually silent) and just there to help build (or better aid in determing) consensus. While I do think from the discussion there wasn't a clear consensus, the results do help show that there is more consensus for episode articles than season articles. Cws125 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC) That's true. However, since, as far as I can see, there isn't a definite consensus among everyone, I don't think immediately redirecting the season articles is the best idea. --Kahlfin 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC) It's also demonstrably true that many (at least 14, in fact) of the 22 people who voted for the separate episode articles had not previously participated in basically any Lost-related editing before this controversy (say, using the date of March 12 (when the separate episode articles started to be created), and using the criteria of "2 or fewer Lost-related edits prior to that time"). E.g., Matt, User:Cws125, User:Jake11, Sarahjane10784, User:Megapixie, User:Behun, User:Alexignatiou, User:Matharvest, User:SLC1, User:Siva1979, User:BladeHamilton, User:GRB, Ekalin, User:Danyoung. Um, the phrase "stack the deck" comes to mind... -- PKtm 20:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Just to humor your thought for a moment, you forgot to mention that there are at least 5 (that I can see quickly) on the opposing side that have never even edited a Lost article before the poll [eg. User:LeafGreen Ranger, User:NeoThermic, User:Torritorri, User:NostraDogbert, User:Manipe], and at least 1 other one that only really edited punctuation and grammar. Also, I would like to point out that you specifically said March 12 as the cut off date, I wonder why you chose that date which is about a month and a half ago and plenty enough time to be a legitimate part of this? (*cough* Special:Contributions/Cws125). In addition to that, I can say that at least several of the people you just listed are avid wikipedia editors that should definitely know the policies and rules by now, not to mention that some of them do much editing on other TV shows as well. Playing along with your calculations and including mine, we can see that it approximately reduces both totals by a half (more so for the 22 side under your count). Either way, you can't just ignore votes, its a poll, everyone's opinions matter (even if you or I may disagree with them). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) It's not exactly a mystery about March 12, since I actually stated above why I chose that date: it's when the separate articles for episodes were created en masse, without previous discussion, in 2 1/2 straight hours of editing by someone who had provided two format-related (trivial) Lost-related edits, ever, prior to that time. And I never suggested "ignoring" votes, but rather, I was just putting some of the votes into context. It seems quite odd to me, frankly, that we'd get so many votes (for either side, as you note) from non-participating editors. And although everyone's opinions matter, certainly, I do think that this issue revolves around the article maintenance burden, which will be borne by regular, participating editors. I'm much more interested in seeing how they vote than I am in the views of people who don't contribute here, and it greatly influences (and should influence) the view of what "consensus" is in this matter. -- PKtm 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Since there's clearly not even a consensus about whether or not there was a consensus from the poll above, I've asked Stifle to see if he can come by and give his input. He'd previously offered to act as a neutral party in any misunderstandings like this on the Lost pages (since he's an admin with 0 interest in the show, so he hasn't contributed to either method and won't have any bias towards either method), so I thought it might be useful to take him up on that offer here. --Maelwys 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I dont believe that you are correct in your first line, the only people that don't seem to agree that there is a clear consensus is a minority of the minority side who will claim anything to keep from losing. I also don't believe asking an admin is necessary or even useful (regardless of his unbiased position), simply because it is obvious that the side with 200% more votes has won. Also, the point of a poll is for the decision not to rest on one person, I mean, if he happens to like one of the minority voters, who's to stop him for agreeing with his decision? (not that he would, but I'm just saying the poll was to avoid that kind of thing) If the opposing side had prevailed in convincing those on the other side with their arguments, then they may have won, but 22 people still maintain a yes vote. I believe that according to the minority minority side, no consensus is reached until they themselves change their votes, that doesn't make sense, a poll is a poll, you don't have to convince 100% of the voters to win. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC) ArgentiumOutlaw, please read WP:CON and WP:POLL. Thanks. -- PKtm 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) PKtm, please be logical. Thank you. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) In all honesty, I don't think the people who voted "yes" were looking to be persuaded. Only a couple of those people are regular contributers to Lost articles. The vast majority of the regular contributers voted no. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC) That may be true, but the same can easily be said of the other side, I doubt anyone on that side came there with an open mind for discussion and ideas, so that balances out nicely. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are plenty of TV series with articles on each episode, and more with articles about seasons and series. The rough consensus here is that each episode should have its own article, while the articles on the seasons should redirect to the list of episodes. I strongly recommend creating a template box with links to the previous and next episodes, to put at the end of each episode's page, so that people browsing through can go easily through the episodes. Finally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite or a review site, so long reviews don't really have any place. Hope this helps. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure if they were there when you posted this or not, but does the template on the right side of each current episode count? It has the previous and next episodes listed for every episode already, but I'm not sure if you meant that we should put one of those templates that go at the bottom of the page (instead of what we have currently). ArgentiumOutlaw 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) So that's it? just keep doing this like untill someone gives up? --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Season Three

Why is the season 3 section hidden, yet it was announced by the producers.

not enough info to show it, eg. a promo shot, season info, airdate, etc --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Awareness.

I've got the season 2 list of Lost Episodes in my watchlist and I look at it about four times a day, every day.
I often see people on the Talk page saying it should be changed into an index page with links to the individual episode pages, in the same way as South Park, Stargate SG1 and The Simpsons and I'm sure many others.
But I always ignore them because of the immense effort involved in making about 50 new pages. Despite the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia (And I love it, by the way) I still have a degree to study for.

This is the first time I've ever bothered to click on the discussion part. Now I see that there's already a page built like the episode lists for most TV shows I whole-heartedly agree with the idea of merging the two pages.
It looks like I'm too late for the Poll but if I had been there I would have voted to join the two.

I imagine there are many many others out there who watch Lost and edit Wikipedia who would agree that having them all in one long list like this is impractical.
The problem is awareness.
The only reason I bothered to click on the link is that all my friends are out tonight and there's nothing better to do. If only there was some way to raise awareness of the index page then maybe more people would vote to change it.
People like the status quo because there's too many different options and they often can't be bothered to research them.

If only we could use something more prominant than the little banner at the top of the page. Most Wikipedia pages have some form of banner at the top, be it Proposed For Deletion or Cleanup or Merge This Page With [Whatever] or This Page Needs Sources.
To be frank, they melt into the foreground. Like roadcones or workmen's florescent jackets; they're designed to stand out but there's just so many of them that you don't even aknowledge their existence.
I don't know if it'd be feasible to have some other, more prominent announcement on the page that encourages you to look at the discussion, but it's worth concidering.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this issue is to change all the links to the long page with those to links to the index page, but leave the Discussion link in place.
Then if someone objects to the massive overhaul then they can go to the discussion to complain. But if they like it they will keep quiet and the page conforms to Wikipedia's standards for episode lists and then everyone's happy.

Just something to concider. --Simondrake 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No I think that this page is not that long, I mean the simpsons has 17 seasons and counting, LOST is not that big yet. and there are other articles that are longer then this, I say we keep it this way for now. Thanks for keeping an eye open :) --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Production codes

What is our source for the production codes? Are they best guesses or from an official source? Where did the 100/200/300/400 codes for the recap episodes come from? Rillian 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Rillan, I got the codes from here. Thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

For this to reach featured status, it would be good if people can explain the relevance of each screenshot in their individual description pages. In the case of images that aren't particularly descriptive of each episode, they should be replaced with ones that are. (For instance, the shots for Tabula Rasa, Whatever the Case May Be, etc). Sarge Baldy 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good poit, I would say that about %65-%75 of the images are discriptive of the episode, in your example of "Whatever the Case May Be", I belive that the image does explain the tension between Sawyer and Kate in which Kate tries to get the case --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well just as long as you can clarify that in the image's description. We basically need to make a "case" for each image as to why it should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia and how it's relevant to the episode. I guess people are pretty picky about how we use fair use images these days. But that seems to be the only obstacle to featured status at this point, so it's worth the effort. Sarge Baldy 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So,,, how do I "clarify" the image's discription?--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to the images and change the descriptions in a way that shows the importance of the image to people who haven't even watched the show. I've done the first episode as an example. [5] Sarge Baldy 06:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note - the images for 'Do No Harm', 'The Greater Good' and 'Born to Run', and 'Exodus', Parts One and Two are all incorrect.

• Do No Harm’s is Boone's funeral, an event which happened in 'The Greater Good'.
• The Greater Good’s is Michael ill, an event which happened in 'Born to Run'
• Born to Run’s is Danielle, Hurley, Locke, Jack and Sayid at the hatch, an event which happened in 'Exodus, Part One'
• Exodus, Part One’s in inside the Black Rock - which wasn't entered until Part Two
• Exodus, Part Two’s is Jack and Locke talking at night - which didn't happen until Part Three
• Exodus, Part Three’s is the raft - I'm unsure whether the time of day is correct or not

I'd modify them myself, but I'm terrible with images. Squidward2602 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ok :), done, if you would be kind enough to go to the List of Lost episodes and refresh your page (and clear your browser's chache) so the new images show up,, if there are any other images you want to me change please tell me :) thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Homecoming picture is incorrect- that scene was never broadcasted EVER.

are you sure? I think I saw it at the DVD --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i'm 100% sure- the fight scene that was shown at the end was between ETHAN and JACK not JOHN. In fact this is from a cut scene where initially the writers wanted to have the fight between ETHAN and JOHN- but as it was never aired I think you're better off putting another picture.

Season 3 Date Confirmed?

The article says that season 3 starts on October 4th, 2006. Where was this confirmed? ShadowUltra 00:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Lost timeline

I have just started a draft for a Lost timeline page, showing the events day-by-day from the airplane crash. It would be usefull? Shankao 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this fits under the category of fancruft, and isn't encyclopedic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This page might well not end up going anywhere, but just incase it does, there is a very comprehensive timeline here, which could be used as a sort of reference. Tomcage9 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exodus part 2/3; Live Together, Die Alone part 1/2

This might already be answered or I might just be completely wrong, so if I am, I apologise, but this Wikipedia episode guide is the only place I can find Exodus part 2 split up into Exodus part 2 and 3, and Live Together, Die Alone spit up into part 1 and 2.

On the TV.com list of episodes, Exodus appears as follows:

Exodus (1) Exodus (2)

On this list, however, we seem to go on to split Exodus (2) up to also make Exodus (3).

This is the same for Live Together, Die Alone.

Also, according to the TV.com page, we have all the season 1 production codes wrong on this page, as Pilot, Part 1 aparantly has the production code of 100, then part 2 101, etc, meaning we are 1 ahead for every episode.

I hope somebody understands what I'm saying here. Tomcage9 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

TV.com is also editable by anybody and should not be considered a source for information on Wikipedia. As far as the parts of "Exodus", outside of North America the two hour finale was split up into three airings. Since Wikipedia is written for everybody and not just North American readers, it is split up by hour, not by episode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumaga (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 May 2006.

I am not the kind of person to force my views on other people, so I won't, but I will say them. After looking at the page names for the episodes on the ABC website, I believe the production codes are as follows:

Pilot, Part 1: 100a (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/100a.html)
Pilot, Part 2: 100b (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/100b.html)
Tabula Rasa: 101 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/101.html)

Etc, down to...

Exodus, Part 1: 121 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/121.html)
Exodus, Part 2: 122 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/122.html)

And then...

Man of Science, Man of Faith: 201 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/201.html)

Down to...

Three Minutes: 222 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/222.html)

I understand the point made about the fact that outside the US, Exodus isn't always shown as only 2 parts, it is sometimes split up further, but as this is an encyclopedia, my personal view (and that's all it is), is that Exodus should be left as part 1 and part 2, and Live Together, Die Alone should be left as one episode. If some country decided to split Exodus into 6 different parts, we wouldn't create Exodus, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, etc. on this page. Tomcage9 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the abc.com website should be used as an offical source, and hence, if that site breaks up/consolidates a show, Wikipedia should display it likewise. Bldxyz 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unexpected redirect

There was a lot of information at Episodes of Lost (season 2) which was recently wiped out, and the page redirected to this one. Was there consensus to do this? It seems like this messed up a lot of links, and lost a lot of information --Elonka 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there was consensus according to how I define the word. Perhaps there was a supermajority, followed by a neutral opinion. But if you take a look at the green and orange boxes above on this same page, you can see that the issue was discussed and debated (with some heat, I might add).

In summary:

• Many people favored moving towards a list, linking to individual episodes pages. (What it looks like today.)
• A smaller, but not insubstantial, number of people favored the single season, Episodes of Lost pages. (What you point out is gone now.)
• Intepretation of the straw poll, including a meta-discussion on how to intepret polls, ensued.
• A third-party (an apparently neutral and qualified person) rendered an opinion that by my reading favors the episode list/individual episode page solution.
• Thereafter, consensus was not tested, nor confirmed.

I suppose that is how things go, though. One of the sad byproducts about passion: hard for people to take things lightly enough to come to an agreement. Bldxyz 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Airdates of Lost

Where has the Airdates of Lost article gone? -Ablaze (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airdates_of_Lost! -Ablaze (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I completely support the outcome here (to put it mildly), I'd like to propose that any time there's a proposed AfD on a Lost-related page, someone post (say, on the main Lost article) that it's happening, so that everyone has an opportunity to voice their opinions. Perhaps that was done, and I missed the notice, but in any case, I missed this AfD vote entirely. Votes that aren't publicized aren't nearly as useful as ones that are. -- PKtm 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's difficult to get to these AFDs unless we specifically searched for it. It would be helpful if the person who starts the AFDs provided links in the related pages. ArgentiumOutlaw 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I concurr as well. I missed the whole straw poll and debate, too. Plus the meta-debate about the meaning of the poll. Bldxyz 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)